Stirring the Pot: are all calories equal
Replies
-
mamapeach910 wrote: »I really have to wonder if the difference in the raw/cooked food is even statistically significant, let alone falling within/without the margin of error for estimating we all make counting calories to begin with. This article has been posted several times now, and I've thought the same thing every time I've seen it.
I've also thought that raw foodists are probably having a field day with it.
Agreed, I think people who really believe in this are overthinking things. The difference, if there is one, will not be statistically significant. Probably a handful of calories at most. A calorie is a calorie.0 -
jenluvsushi wrote: »yopeeps025 wrote: »
What THE ARTICLE is implying is that the processed food calories are more readily absorbed by the body so even though you consumed 100 calories of apple OR 100 calories of a twinkie, your body actually digested/used more of the twinkie than the harder to digest apple. You also burn more calories digesting whole/raw food than cooked food.
Even if this is true (which I'm not sure that it is), the difference between energy burned digesting raw and cooked foods is so minuscule that the calories are negligible. I'm not going to eat only raw foods in the day just so I could burn a hypothetical 40 more calories, or whatever.0 -
Iron_Feline wrote: »" If you eat your food raw, you will tend to lose weight. If you eat the same food cooked, you will tend to gain weight. Same calories, different outcome."
I stopped reading at that point as that is simply wrong and laughable.
Yeah... I was a raw foods vegan for a while. I didn't lose weight. I felt great, eating that much produce feels terrific. But, I ate a lot of raw nuts and avocados too.
0 -
FDA allows a margin of error of 20% on labels by food manufacturers.0
-
For weight loss, I believe a calorie is a calorie. It's a unit of energy, I've used this example many times: if I ate 300 calories of ice cream for breakfast, 300 calories of Ice cream for lunch and 300 calories of ice cream for dinner and ate nothing else at all, I'd lose weight because I'm only consuming 900 calories a day.
meh, the quality of the calorie/unit of energy matters. Let's say, solar power vs coal. You'd go with solar power right? Why? It's all energy!0 -
I skimmed the article and is treading pretty well worn ground. But I love the idea of a pole-dancing british scientist.0
-
Are all inches equal?
How about yard sticks?
does 1 centimeter = 1 centimeter?
100 calories from an apple are equal to 100 calories from a twinkie.
the NUTRITION is not identical.
But the calories are the same because a calorie is simply a unit of measurement, the measurement of the amount of heat you need to raise the temp of a kg of water by one celsius degree
This.. and in because I am sure I will have to lock this thread as usual.
0 -
I think the title of the thread throws off what the article is really saying. It is not arguing that there exists inequality among calories. It is stating that just because you ingest 100 calories of some food, it doesn't mean that you digest all 100 calories. The availability of those calories for digestion and consumption by your body's cells vary from food to food.0
-
hollydubs85 wrote: »jenluvsushi wrote: »yopeeps025 wrote: »
What THE ARTICLE is implying is that the processed food calories are more readily absorbed by the body so even though you consumed 100 calories of apple OR 100 calories of a twinkie, your body actually digested/used more of the twinkie than the harder to digest apple. You also burn more calories digesting whole/raw food than cooked food.
Even if this is true (which I'm not sure that it is), the difference between energy burned digesting raw and cooked foods is so minuscule that the calories are negligible. I'm not going to eat only raw foods in the day just so I could burn a hypothetical 40 more calories, or whatever.
I agree...although there is a skinny little hamster sitting in a science lab that might disagree. LOL! As a side note-I wonder if they take into consideration that the difference in the calories burned in digestion for a rodent might be significantly different in a human? It's basically bringing back the "negative calorie" food debate. Still an interesting article either way.0 -
Burt_Huttz wrote: »I skimmed the article and is treading pretty well worn ground. But I love the idea of a pole-dancing british scientist.
Glad it's not just me.0 -
That's actually a pretty good way to think of it. The last time I explained this to someone and I included "of course, that much ice cream probably wouldn't make ya feel too good" but you make a good pointAgentOrangeJuice wrote: »For weight loss, I believe a calorie is a calorie. It's a unit of energy, I've used this example many times: if I ate 300 calories of ice cream for breakfast, 300 calories of Ice cream for lunch and 300 calories of ice cream for dinner and ate nothing else at all, I'd lose weight because I'm only consuming 900 calories a day.
meh, the quality of the calorie/unit of energy matters. Let's say, solar power vs coal. You'd go with solar power right? Why? It's all energy!
ETA: Thank you for that thought
0 -
AgentOrangeJuice wrote: »For weight loss, I believe a calorie is a calorie. It's a unit of energy, I've used this example many times: if I ate 300 calories of ice cream for breakfast, 300 calories of Ice cream for lunch and 300 calories of ice cream for dinner and ate nothing else at all, I'd lose weight because I'm only consuming 900 calories a day.
meh, the quality of the calorie/unit of energy matters. Let's say, solar power vs coal. You'd go with solar power right? Why? It's all energy!
Interesting that you didn't quote her whole comment - just so other can see the contect she added.
-For weight loss, I believe a calorie is a calorie. It's a unit of energy, I've used this example many times: if I ate 300 calories of ice cream for breakfast, 300 calories of Ice cream for lunch and 300 calories of ice cream for dinner and ate nothing else at all, I'd lose weight because I'm only consuming 900 calories a day.
However, 900 calories of just ice cream a day is not sustainable. And a 900 calorie diet is pretty dangerous. I believe it is important to eat a variety of foods because that's what, imo, is probably the most satisfying. So when it comes to satisfaction and hunger, there are definitely foods that contain the same calories per serving but satisfy the body and hunger differently.0 -
As I have always said, I didn't get this way by eating too many carrots (cooked OR raw). I agree with others who say it is overthinking it to worry about how processed (cooked) your fresh spinach is - if I am eating fresh spinach, cooked or raw, I am not eating a Twinkie. Therefore I will lose weight! ;-)0
-
That's actually a pretty good way to think of it. The last time I explained this to someone and I included "of course, that much ice cream probably wouldn't make ya feel too good" but you make a good pointAgentOrangeJuice wrote: »For weight loss, I believe a calorie is a calorie. It's a unit of energy, I've used this example many times: if I ate 300 calories of ice cream for breakfast, 300 calories of Ice cream for lunch and 300 calories of ice cream for dinner and ate nothing else at all, I'd lose weight because I'm only consuming 900 calories a day.
meh, the quality of the calorie/unit of energy matters. Let's say, solar power vs coal. You'd go with solar power right? Why? It's all energy!
ETA: Thank you for that thought
That much ice cream would make me feel pretty great, actually
0 -
That's actually a pretty good way to think of it. The last time I explained this to someone and I included "of course, that much ice cream probably wouldn't make ya feel too good" but you make a good pointAgentOrangeJuice wrote: »For weight loss, I believe a calorie is a calorie. It's a unit of energy, I've used this example many times: if I ate 300 calories of ice cream for breakfast, 300 calories of Ice cream for lunch and 300 calories of ice cream for dinner and ate nothing else at all, I'd lose weight because I'm only consuming 900 calories a day.
meh, the quality of the calorie/unit of energy matters. Let's say, solar power vs coal. You'd go with solar power right? Why? It's all energy!
ETA: Thank you for that thought
The person did add that - Agent Orange juice just chose to omit it to make their point. Cherry picking at its finest.0 -
Now, Weight Watchers has changed their point system so that some things have higher point values than they used to - wine, for instance. I am not sure if they did it because the calories are empty or because there is some different effect on the body. But I do know that if I drink alcohol I tend not to lose weight even if the number of calories is within limits, because alcohol seems to make me retain water weight. So there may be something to the idea that not all calories are equal but not in the way this article is talking about.0
-
AbsoluteTara79 wrote: »I think the title of the thread throws off what the article is really saying. It is not arguing that there exists inequality among calories. It is stating that just because you ingest 100 calories of some food, it doesn't mean that you digest all 100 calories. The availability of those calories for digestion and consumption by your body's cells vary from food to food.
Yes - and further the article's author advocates adjusting food label calorie values to account for the disparity.
Because the problem with obesity is that we think raw spinach is just too high-cal to justify? Stupidest assertion ever.0 -
Are all inches equal?
How about yard sticks?
does 1 centimeter = 1 centimeter?
100 calories from an apple are equal to 100 calories from a twinkie.
the NUTRITION is not identical.
But the calories are the same because a calorie is simply a unit of measurement, the measurement of the amount of heat you need to raise the temp of a kg of water by one celsius degree
This.. and in because I am sure I will have to lock this thread as usual.
loll0 -
Are all inches equal?
How about yard sticks?
does 1 centimeter = 1 centimeter?
100 calories from an apple are equal to 100 calories from a twinkie.
the NUTRITION is not identical.
But the calories are the same because a calorie is simply a unit of measurement, the measurement of the amount of heat you need to raise the temp of a kg of water by one celsius degree
This.. and in because I am sure I will have to lock this thread as usual.
If I flag this post, can you see who did the flagging? Because how can you know for sure you will have to lock it? Maybe this is the time when things evolve differently? 0 -
jenluvsushi wrote: »hollydubs85 wrote: »jenluvsushi wrote: »yopeeps025 wrote: »
What THE ARTICLE is implying is that the processed food calories are more readily absorbed by the body so even though you consumed 100 calories of apple OR 100 calories of a twinkie, your body actually digested/used more of the twinkie than the harder to digest apple. You also burn more calories digesting whole/raw food than cooked food.
Even if this is true (which I'm not sure that it is), the difference between energy burned digesting raw and cooked foods is so minuscule that the calories are negligible. I'm not going to eat only raw foods in the day just so I could burn a hypothetical 40 more calories, or whatever.
I agree...although there is a skinny little hamster sitting in a science lab that might disagree. LOL! As a side note-I wonder if they take into consideration that the difference in the calories burned in digestion for a rodent might be significantly different in a human? It's basically bringing back the "negative calorie" food debate. Still an interesting article either way.
Which is why the only experiments to date that show any difference are in rats. Very slight changes in calories equate to relatively big changes in body composition in rats because they are so small.
Practically speaking, the difference in bioavailable calories between the food fed to rat colony 1 and the food fed to rat colony 2 that resulted in the 30% difference in fat cited in the article has to be miniscule, or the rats fed the puffed grains would have blown up like blimps.
Do a similar experiment in humans and you probably wouldn't get a difference in weight that met statistical significance.0 -
Iron_Feline wrote: »" If you eat your food raw, you will tend to lose weight. If you eat the same food cooked, you will tend to gain weight. Same calories, different outcome."
I stopped reading at that point as that is simply wrong and laughable.
That's as far as I got as well. Idk how I lost weight eating processed food.
0 -
Burt_Huttz wrote: »AbsoluteTara79 wrote: »I think the title of the thread throws off what the article is really saying. It is not arguing that there exists inequality among calories. It is stating that just because you ingest 100 calories of some food, it doesn't mean that you digest all 100 calories. The availability of those calories for digestion and consumption by your body's cells vary from food to food.
Yes - and further the article's author advocates adjusting food label calorie values to account for the disparity.
Because the problem with obesity is that we think raw spinach is just too high-cal to justify? Stupidest assertion ever.
And that difference is a. probably statistically insignificant and b. made completely irrelevant for the purposes of calorie counting by this line which was conveniently tucked in to the end of the article:
Food labels ignore the costs of the digestive process – losses to bacteria and energy spent digesting. The costs are lower for processed items, so the amount of overestimation on their labels is less.
So the labels are OVERESTIMATES whether raw or processed. The only difference is by how much.0 -
I don't know, I'm pretty big on sweets, but I'd probably go crazy without the option to eat baconMarziPanda95 wrote: »
That's actually a pretty good way to think of it. The last time I explained this to someone and I included "of course, that much ice cream probably wouldn't make ya feel too good" but you make a good pointAgentOrangeJuice wrote: »For weight loss, I believe a calorie is a calorie. It's a unit of energy, I've used this example many times: if I ate 300 calories of ice cream for breakfast, 300 calories of Ice cream for lunch and 300 calories of ice cream for dinner and ate nothing else at all, I'd lose weight because I'm only consuming 900 calories a day.
meh, the quality of the calorie/unit of energy matters. Let's say, solar power vs coal. You'd go with solar power right? Why? It's all energy!
ETA: Thank you for that thought
That much ice cream would make me feel pretty great, actually
0 -
I don't know, I'm pretty big on sweets, but I'd probably go crazy without the option to eat baconMarziPanda95 wrote: »
That's actually a pretty good way to think of it. The last time I explained this to someone and I included "of course, that much ice cream probably wouldn't make ya feel too good" but you make a good pointAgentOrangeJuice wrote: »For weight loss, I believe a calorie is a calorie. It's a unit of energy, I've used this example many times: if I ate 300 calories of ice cream for breakfast, 300 calories of Ice cream for lunch and 300 calories of ice cream for dinner and ate nothing else at all, I'd lose weight because I'm only consuming 900 calories a day.
meh, the quality of the calorie/unit of energy matters. Let's say, solar power vs coal. You'd go with solar power right? Why? It's all energy!
ETA: Thank you for that thought
That much ice cream would make me feel pretty great, actually
Put bacon in ice cream? Win-win
0 -
Burt_Huttz wrote: »AbsoluteTara79 wrote: »I think the title of the thread throws off what the article is really saying. It is not arguing that there exists inequality among calories. It is stating that just because you ingest 100 calories of some food, it doesn't mean that you digest all 100 calories. The availability of those calories for digestion and consumption by your body's cells vary from food to food.
Yes - and further the article's author advocates adjusting food label calorie values to account for the disparity.
Because the problem with obesity is that we think raw spinach is just too high-cal to justify? Stupidest assertion ever.
I think the author's point (from my interpretation) was that the stakes are high on this issue and it's worth spending effort to bring more precision to labels. I didn't put much weight into the straw man stoplight system proposed - seems illustrative rather than a specific recommendation. And I don't know what the margin of error looks like to judge how dire the inaccuracy is, but I generally believe consumers are entitled to accurate information.0 -
That's perfect. I can almost taste caramel swirl ice cream with bacon in it right now!MarziPanda95 wrote: »
I don't know, I'm pretty big on sweets, but I'd probably go crazy without the option to eat baconMarziPanda95 wrote: »
That's actually a pretty good way to think of it. The last time I explained this to someone and I included "of course, that much ice cream probably wouldn't make ya feel too good" but you make a good pointAgentOrangeJuice wrote: »For weight loss, I believe a calorie is a calorie. It's a unit of energy, I've used this example many times: if I ate 300 calories of ice cream for breakfast, 300 calories of Ice cream for lunch and 300 calories of ice cream for dinner and ate nothing else at all, I'd lose weight because I'm only consuming 900 calories a day.
meh, the quality of the calorie/unit of energy matters. Let's say, solar power vs coal. You'd go with solar power right? Why? It's all energy!
ETA: Thank you for that thought
That much ice cream would make me feel pretty great, actually
Put bacon in ice cream? Win-win
0 -
Burt_Huttz wrote: »Because the problem with obesity is that we think raw spinach is just too high-cal to justify? Stupidest assertion ever.
Are you familiar with the term "straw man"? The article didn't say that raw spinach had too many calories to justify.
Yes, if an apple and a Twinkie are both labeled 100 calories it is absolutely understandable that someone who thought "well, a calorie is a calorie" would choose the Twinkie. If 100% of the Twinkie's calories are absorbed but only 50% of the apple's are, that - spread across millions of similar decisions - would make a difference in the obesity rate of a population.
It would be interesting to know what the actual discrepancy is between what is absorbed by the body and what a machine reads - which is exactly the author's point! That info would be useful, and we don't have it.
0 -
AbsoluteTara79 wrote: »Burt_Huttz wrote: »AbsoluteTara79 wrote: »I think the title of the thread throws off what the article is really saying. It is not arguing that there exists inequality among calories. It is stating that just because you ingest 100 calories of some food, it doesn't mean that you digest all 100 calories. The availability of those calories for digestion and consumption by your body's cells vary from food to food.
Yes - and further the article's author advocates adjusting food label calorie values to account for the disparity.
Because the problem with obesity is that we think raw spinach is just too high-cal to justify? Stupidest assertion ever.
I think the author's point (from my interpretation) was that the stakes are high on this issue and it's worth spending effort to bring more precision to labels. I didn't put much weight into the straw man stoplight system proposed - seems illustrative rather than a specific recommendation. And I don't know what the margin of error looks like to judge how dire the inaccuracy is, but I generally believe consumers are entitled to accurate information.
There are 186 calories in one pound of raw carrots. Let us say that we tweak that down to 150 to account for digestive inefficiency.
I assert that will make no change whatsoever on the American diet. People will not forgo 186 calories of cookies in favor of a full pound of carrots. People who count their calories do not need the additional precision. People who do not count their calories would not benefit from the revision.
I really like the way you write, by the way.0 -
Burt_Huttz wrote: »AbsoluteTara79 wrote: »I think the title of the thread throws off what the article is really saying. It is not arguing that there exists inequality among calories. It is stating that just because you ingest 100 calories of some food, it doesn't mean that you digest all 100 calories. The availability of those calories for digestion and consumption by your body's cells vary from food to food.
Yes - and further the article's author advocates adjusting food label calorie values to account for the disparity.
Because the problem with obesity is that we think raw spinach is just too high-cal to justify? Stupidest assertion ever.
I think it's because the assumption is that I would look at my (currently labeled) 70 cal peanut butter creme oreo and compare to what is currently 70 cals worth of ... lets say, cocoa nibs and peanuts ... and choose the cocoa nibs and peanuts because the NEW AND IMPROVED calorie label would show the cocoa nibs and peanuts at 69 cals instead of 70 and therefore you would get more for the same calories.
Yeah. Not so much.0 -
AbsoluteTara79 wrote: »Burt_Huttz wrote: »AbsoluteTara79 wrote: »I think the title of the thread throws off what the article is really saying. It is not arguing that there exists inequality among calories. It is stating that just because you ingest 100 calories of some food, it doesn't mean that you digest all 100 calories. The availability of those calories for digestion and consumption by your body's cells vary from food to food.
Yes - and further the article's author advocates adjusting food label calorie values to account for the disparity.
Because the problem with obesity is that we think raw spinach is just too high-cal to justify? Stupidest assertion ever.
I think the author's point (from my interpretation) was that the stakes are high on this issue and it's worth spending effort to bring more precision to labels. I didn't put much weight into the straw man stoplight system proposed - seems illustrative rather than a specific recommendation. And I don't know what the margin of error looks like to judge how dire the inaccuracy is, but I generally believe consumers are entitled to accurate information.
So for purposes of weight loss it would be better to:
a. think you eat 100 calories but actually only absorb 95
b. think you eat 100 calories and actually absorb 100
Because that's the difference the author is suggesting. More accuracy in the labels in this case would only lower the calorie amounts listed on foods. I'm thinking a generalized overestimation is probably the better way to go. Especially since my system may or may not be as efficient at nutrient absorption as someone else.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions